Curious about your boot drive. I tried the same thing with a SATA to CF adapter using a Kingston 133X 16GB CF. It took ~3 hours to load XP SP2 on the card and I was never successful booting from it. Any suggestions or comments?

Curious about your boot drive. I tried the same thing with a SATA to CF adapter using a Kingston 133X 16GB CF. It took ~3 hours to load XP SP2 on the card and I was never successful booting from it. Any suggestions or comments?

I've only used this PATA to CF adapter. In fact I have and used at least a couple of these. But I've never had any trouble with them---I just insert the CF card, connect the PATA cable, and provide power via the floppy connector, and everything "just works".

However, they are fairly slow. All my home computers run some open source unix (Linux or OpenBSD), and particularly with things like NAS boxes and firewall/router boxes, I go with a fairly barebones/minimal install. But the three hour install of XP doesn't surprise me too much. If you can, check the DMA settings of your adapter, and also how the OS recognizes the "drive". Going from memory, some of the cheaper Syba PATA-to-CF adapters don't support any form of DMA; likewise, I think some CF cards don't have DMA support. If both the adapter and card don't support (U)DMA, you'll be forced to use PIO mode, which is dreadfully slow.

I don't have any ideas on the boot failure. Most BIOSes that I've used show at least some information about attached drives. Same goes for my CF "drives". So, can you see the CF drive in your BIOS setup screen? Or can you see the BIOS finding it during its POST process? It seems unlikely that Windows could find it in order to do the install, but your BIOS can't find it to boot from.

You might want to use a system rescue CD or Linux boot CD to use a tool to look at the partition table (e.g. fdisk). There is a "bootable" flag that can be set on a partition. I know I sometimes used to forget to set this on "manual" install Linux distros (like Gentoo), although it's automatic on "easy" install distros (like Ubuntu) and should certainly be automatic with Windows. But it's worth checking either way.

Finally, I did kill at least a CF card, and maybe the adapter once by accidentally shorting part of the adapter on the case. I don't know what happened, but there was a quick, brief, small flash, a little bit of a smoke, and the compact flash card was barely touchable (extremely hot). The card was definitely dead; I didn't want to risk killing another card with the adapter so I tossed it. I'm not sure whose fault that was, but now I always make sure the adapter rests on a non-conductive surface.

A C.F. PATA adapter does only link the C.F. pins to the PATA pins and adds a power connector for powering up the C.F.

So the speed only depends on the quality of your C.F. - I have a Kingston Ultimate 266x that does 39MB/s write and 46MB/s read (clearly S.L.C. NAND Flash in here), the XP install took only some minutes.

One advice, when using these PATA adapter, you have to check if the C.F. has a non-removable-device flag since it could be a problem with Microsoft OSes (but not linux).

A C.F. PATA adapter does only link the C.F. pins to the PATA pins and adds a power connector for powering up the C.F.

So the speed only depends on the quality of your C.F.

Are you sure that's completely true? Honest question, not trying to be argumentative. My understanding is that both the CF and the adapter have to support (Ultra) DMA. There are different levels of DMA defined within the PATA spec---if you find an old enough motherboard, for example, it won't support the newest DMA modes. I'm guessing that the increasing levels of DMA require at least some extra degree of sophistication in wiring. One obvious example is when the cables went from 40 wires to 80 wires (although the actual number of pins stayed the same).

A C.F. PATA adapter does only link the C.F. pins to the PATA pins and adds a power connector for powering up the C.F.

So the speed only depends on the quality of your C.F.

Are you sure that's completely true?

A PATA C.F. Adapter is a PASSIVE adapter - think it as a 2'5" IDE to 3,5" IDE adapter. It only does a mechanical conversion and has not any chip for converting the signal (it would be easier to explain if you ever see one). So the speed only depends on your C.F. (and not every C.F. does support UDMA, for istance, as you saw in wikipedia, and not every memory is egual on speed).

A SATA C.F. Adapter is instead an ACTIVE adapter - think it as a SATA to PATA adapter. It does a mechanical AND a signal conversion. So the speed depends on your C.F. AND on the chip on the adapter, that is needed for converting PATA signals to SATA ones.

A C.F. PATA adapter does only link the C.F. pins to the PATA pins and adds a power connector for powering up the C.F.

So the speed only depends on the quality of your C.F.

Are you sure that's completely true?

A PATA C.F. Adapter is a PASSIVE adapter - think it as a 2'5" IDE to 3,5" IDE adapter. It only does a mechanical conversion and has not any chip for converting the signal (it would be easier to explain if you ever see one). So the speed only depends on your C.F. (and not every C.F. does support UDMA, for istance, as you saw in wikipedia, and not every memory is egual on speed).

A SATA C.F. Adapter is instead an ACTIVE adapter - think it as a SATA to PATA adapter. It does a mechanical AND a signal conversion. So the speed depends on your C.F. AND on the chip on the adapter, that is needed for converting PATA signals to SATA ones.

I know there is a model of syba cf to ide adapter that only supports pio mode, and not DMA. So it is not solely dependent on the flash card, but also it matters for your cf to ide adapter to support at least DMA-66 speeds or it can bottleneck your card, much like if you hooked up a hard drive to a motherboard port that only supported PAE.

A C.F. PATA adapter does only link the C.F. pins to the PATA pins and adds a power connector for powering up the C.F.

So the speed only depends on the quality of your C.F.

Are you sure that's completely true?

A PATA C.F. Adapter is a PASSIVE adapter - think it as a 2'5" IDE to 3,5" IDE adapter. It only does a mechanical conversion and has not any chip for converting the signal (it would be easier to explain if you ever see one). So the speed only depends on your C.F. (and not every C.F. does support UDMA, for istance, as you saw in wikipedia, and not every memory is egual on speed).

A SATA C.F. Adapter is instead an ACTIVE adapter - think it as a SATA to PATA adapter. It does a mechanical AND a signal conversion. So the speed depends on your C.F. AND on the chip on the adapter, that is needed for converting PATA signals to SATA ones.

I know there is a model of syba cf to ide adapter that only supports pio mode, and not DMA. So it it not solely dependent on the flash card, but also it matters for your cf to ide adapter to support at least DMA-66 speeds or it can bottleneck your card, much like if you hooked up a hard drive to a motherboard port that only supported PAE.

A C.F. PATA adapter does only link the C.F. pins to the PATA pins and adds a power connector for powering up the C.F.

So the speed only depends on the quality of your C.F.

Are you sure that's completely true?

A PATA C.F. Adapter is a PASSIVE adapter - think it as a 2'5" IDE to 3,5" IDE adapter. It only does a mechanical conversion and has not any chip for converting the signal (it would be easier to explain if you ever see one). So the speed only depends on your C.F. (and not every C.F. does support UDMA, for istance, as you saw in wikipedia, and not every memory is egual on speed).

A SATA C.F. Adapter is instead an ACTIVE adapter - think it as a SATA to PATA adapter. It does a mechanical AND a signal conversion. So the speed depends on your C.F. AND on the chip on the adapter, that is needed for converting PATA signals to SATA ones.

I know there is a model of syba cf to ide adapter that only supports pio mode, and not DMA. So it it not solely dependent on the flash card, but also it matters for your cf to ide adapter to support at least DMA-66 speeds or it can bottleneck your card, much like if you hooked up a hard drive to a motherboard port that only supported PAE.

The KaW always gave lower power (W) readings compared to the Extech -- 92W vs 97.3W, 71-72W vs. 75.4W, 33-34W vs. 36.4W, 13W vs. 15W. It will be pulled from active duty in the lab.

...

The second SPA was close to the first, but slightly less consistent, with PF readings slightly lower sometimes, and power reading also slightly lower sometimes. This one will also be retired.

Any chance you could take a look inside those two, particularly the KaW? It would be helpful to know what IC they use. most of these things are basically one IC and a high power resistor.

By knowing what IC is in use we could try to identify the better ones. If you look at the colour codes on the resistor you can tell what the tolerance is. Standard ones are only about 10% accurate so that could account for all the variations you are seeing. It would also mean that the accuracy could be improved simply by replacing the resistor, or even just picking the most accurate resistor from a selection of meters.

I have a few here that I will open up and test. Unfortunately they are all the same make, but could still be useful for checking tolerances.

I have no personal experience with it, but one comment from looking at the pictures of it on newegg: it appears it has a four (maybe five) phase power supply (VRM). This probably uses more power than the Biostar's three-phase VRM. Because of the Biostar's wimpy VRM, it only supports CPUs with a TDP of 95W or less. Some consider this a limitation; I consider it a feature as it generally means lower power consumption. On the other hand, we're probably talking at most only a few watts here. Plus, it's conceivable that the Asus's bigger VRM is actually engineered well enough to have an efficiency that matches the Biostar's smaller VRM.

Can't argue with any of that! It's nice to see the not-too-bad Realtek NIC in that Asus board. Other low-end Asus boards I've looked at in the past used the (worse) Atheros NIC chips. It also trumps the one big complaint I have with the Biostar board, and that's the "unofficial" ECC support. It seems like it turns a lot of people off.

kaotikfunk wrote:

- I trust Asus build quality over Biostar. Feel free to correct me, I've never killed an Asus board but never owned a Biostar. Newegg comments have more DOAs than I would expect.

In the past, I've generally used Biostar boards for cheap projects I don't care about, and a "tier 1" manufacturer (generally Asus, but Gigabyte recently) for my more important projects (where I'm willing to spend more). Since it's cheap, I treat the Biostar stuff like I stole it, while handling the expensive stuff with kid gloves. Yet I've never had a problem with Biostar, but have had some flaky Asus (and other more expensive) products.

I'm using the M3A76-CM with 4GB of Kingston DDR2-800 ECC as a file/backup server running EON 0.59.9.

Other than the fact that my Syba CF-IDE adapter (which they claim has UDMA support) and Transcend CF card (which they also claim has UDMA support) won't work in UDMA mode, everything's running perfectly.

Has anyone looked into the Asus M3A76-CM yet? I'm considering it over the Biostar TA760G recommended here because:

- it's cheaper than the Biostar at Frys locally or Newegg online.- Kingston already listed DDR-2 800 ECC ram compatible with this board- Same feature set as TA760 (4 dimms, 6 SATA, Realtek 8111c)- I trust Asus build quality over Biostar. Feel free to correct me, I've never killed an Asus board but never owned a Biostar. Newegg comments have more DOAs than I would expect.

Wanting similar goals as Matt, I decided to purchase the TA760G and an Athlon II X2 240e.

After plugging everything in, I powered the system on, and it did not post, there was no beep, and no video.

I exchanged the motherboard for another TA760G from Fry's, and followed the Bare Bones Boot procedure. Basically, the only things connected to the board were the 240e, the case speaker, and power. No RAM, no video, no keyboard. Powered up the system, and silence. I should have heard beeps complaining about no RAM.

I already verified that the PSU and speaker were working with my old components. Since I had swapped in a new motherboard, I was starting to assume the 240e was DOA. However, I found this on page 6 of the manual:

Quote:

Please update the BIOS to the latest version while using AM2+ CPUs. Due to the latest CPU transition, you may encounter the situation that the new system failed to boot while using new AM2+ CPUs. In this case, please install one standard AM2 CPU to boot your system, and update the latest BIOS from our website for AM2+ CPUs support.

Since the 240e is an AM3/AM2+ compatible CPU, does this mean I have to find an AM2 cpu, boot and update the BIOS? Has anyone else had to do this for their AM3/AM2+ cpu and this board?

Since I had swapped in a new motherboard, I was starting to assume the 240e was DOA. However, I found this on page 6 of the manual:

Quote:

Please update the BIOS to the latest version while using AM2+ CPUs. Due to the latest CPU transition, you may encounter the situation that the new system failed to boot while using new AM2+ CPUs. In this case, please install one standard AM2 CPU to boot your system, and update the latest BIOS from our website for AM2+ CPUs support.

Since the 240e is an AM3/AM2+ compatible CPU, does this mean I have to find an AM2 cpu, boot and update the BIOS? Has anyone else had to do this for their AM3/AM2+ cpu and this board?

Sounds like it, unfortunately. We've had to do similar things with both AMD and Intel boards in the past. At least it is updateable! 775 cpus, for example, have come in many variants, many incompatible w/ boards using chipsets of the previous generations. Fry's tech support might help... or perhaps a member of this forum who lives near you?

Sounds like it, unfortunately. We've had to do similar things with both AMD and Intel boards in the past. At least it is updateable! 775 cpus, for example, have come in many variants, many incompatible w/ boards using chipsets of the previous generations. Fry's tech support might help... or perhaps a member of this forum who lives near you?

Picked up a Sempron 140, and system was able to boot. Flashed to latest bios, and swapped in the 240e. Same result: this CPU is DOA. First time I've ever run across a DOA cpu, especially a retail boxed one. Thank god for 30 day return policies. Unfortunately, the retailer is out of stock, and the 240e is a little hard to come by unless you win an ebay auction.

Anyone else with a TA760G using ECC and have "verified" it with memtest?

What version of memtest86 are you using? A too-old version of memtest86 won't recognize the memory controller, and therefore won't be able to use the ECC checks.

Also: in every version of memtest86 I've used, I've had to manually turn on the ECC checking. While memtest is running, there is a button you can push to bring up a menu. I can't remember what button it is, maybe "c" for configuration? But it says so on the screen. Anyway, when you bring up the menu, there is an option to configure ECC settings.

What version of memtest86 are you using? A too-old version of memtest86 won't recognize the memory controller, and therefore won't be able to use the ECC checks.

Also: in every version of memtest86 I've used, I've had to manually turn on the ECC checking. While memtest is running, there is a button you can push to bring up a menu. I can't remember what button it is, maybe "c" for configuration? But it says so on the screen. Anyway, when you bring up the menu, there is an option to configure ECC settings.

After digging around, I realized I misinterpreted what memtest86+ v4.10 (latest) was saying. It's saying that ECC detection and correction are on, but not chipkill. It looks like the the TA760G supports chipkill with x4 chips, but my modules use x8 chips . If I turn off ECC in the bios, then memtest86+ tells me that ECC is disabled.

After digging around, I realized I misinterpreted what memtest86+ v4.10 (latest) was saying. It's saying that ECC detection and correction are on, but not chipkill. It looks like the the TA760G supports chipkill with x4 chips, but my modules use x8 chips . If I turn off ECC in the bios, then memtest86+ tells me that ECC is disabled.

Well, I picked up a plain A760G, put the same ECC modules in, and ran memtest86+. This time, it said chipkill was on. Now I'm confused

From what I've been reading, the Kingston modules I have do not support chipkill. My guess is that the A760Gs bios is returning some hardcoded value with regards to chipkill whenever ECC is enabled. Which could lead to the bios returning hardcoded values for all ECC properties/registers whenever it is enabled, without providing ECC functionality.

After following many of the recommendations in this thread (powernow enabled, lowering Vcore to .9125V, disable unused ports, downclock graphics to 150MHz) I was still idling around 42W and was very disappointed.

26W at the wall! That's with a PicoPSU, OCZ Vertex SSD, a dual-core Athlon64 X2 @ 1.0GHz, 0.95V, at idle.

I haven't dropped the graphics card in yet, and I think I'm going to wait a while before I do. Maybe I'll fire up some old games for now, because my GPU will probably put me just under 40W at idle.

I also have some work to do to calm Windows 7 down. There's a few programs in the background, sucking down CPU cycles all day, and occasionally making my CPU jump to a higher P-state and 40W system power consumption.

After digging around, I realized I misinterpreted what memtest86+ v4.10 (latest) was saying. It's saying that ECC detection and correction are on, but not chipkill. It looks like the the TA760G supports chipkill with x4 chips, but my modules use x8 chips . If I turn off ECC in the bios, then memtest86+ tells me that ECC is disabled.

I just put together a machine with a Gigabyte GA-770T-USB3 motherboard, an Athlon X3 425 CPU, and a Kingston KVR13333D3E9SK2/4G 4GB unbuffered memory kit (two DIMMs). The memory datasheet says that it uses x8 chips, and I wasn't able to get chipkill working unless I changed the BIOS setting for DCTs to "ganged". Apparently this CPU has two independent memory controllers and chipkill will only work with x8 memory chips if both memory controllers are forced to operate in parallel. The downside is that the memory bandwidth reported by memtest86+ drops by about 6% in this configuration. I don't know how much this will affect real world performance, but I'm not too concerned because this machine now has CPU performance to spare.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum